NPC Employees / Slaves

I am tempted to say yes. But I can also see it leading to exploit.. Follow your npc lackee and use him as bait...

It also depends if they would only work in the single player world or not.

If in the multiplayer world, not being able to defend them when attacked by other players could be a good way of making hiring an npc a risk.
You pay a sum of money to the npc, arm and supply it and send it off into the world to fend for itself.

A Harvesting NPC would also make a very tempting target.. Could lead to interesting scenarios dealing with the virtues.
Maybe anyone around who witnesses a harvesting hired NPC being attacked, whether by another npc or player could intervene (flag for PvP with the attacker) and be rewarded for their good action.

 

I don't think that following and defending your NPC could really be called an EXPLOIT. The NPC was paid for from your pocket, his arms and equip came from your pocket, he represents your investment, and serves your purposes. In essence, the NPC is an extension of you. Continuing to invest, giving your time, acting to defend him, that seems very reasonable to me. If PvP players really want to interfere, let them come in numbers sufficient to overcome the defenders, just like any other open conflict. The only faction I can see being served by not allowing defense of the NPC would be solo PK's, looking to get a free greifing off against players who were invested in NPC gatherers.

 

I think NPC companions would be awesome. They could help with a multitude of tasks...fighting/crafting/gathering/house keeping/gardening/companionship... They wouldn't have to be a slave maybe they start out as a friend and they offer their help...Not trying to create the sims but it would be fun to have some other kinds of interactions since sometimes we may be without our rl friend and we have some NPC companion haha

 

NPC's are always poor stand-ins for PC's. They are less interesting and less helpful. Keeping what NPC's can do down to a minimum would encourage PC's to perform the tasks. Makes for a more interesting and dynamic world. Unless you're a total introvert (and then just live as a hermit) or a control freak (then multiplayer is probably not the game for you).

 

I wouldn't mind having employees, even if it was just to make the larger homes more lively instead of being these big empty buildings.

You could have servants for:
- House keeping
- Getting stuff from a vendor (a vendor in the same town)
- Sending messages to other players
- Security (a guard that attacks uninvited guests)

I only think that resource gathering and crafting should be a bit more hands on:
- A Servant could help you with mining/forestry/etc (you'd still need to do work, but they would increase the yield)
- Crafting would be different, you should be able to train up a servant by having mentors or other players teach them.

Just my two cents

 

I like the idea of having a helper, it would be great for maintaining the house when you are on journeys and maybe they could even jump in the way if you are in combat haha

 

Agreed. Because land plots could be fairly limited, it would be beneficial for a person who doesn't have land to come and work for you. In return, they have a home to store their things, get paid, and likely develop a friendship. My concern with this type of "associate" type relationship, would be that a contract of sorts would be necessary. One person or the other could easily be taken advantage of in this situation. I think this type of resource gathering is more realistic than an NPC though. It would give those who don't want "grunt" work the opportunity to pay for services they don't wish to perform. On the other hand, it would give those new players who don't have much to start on to get a head start on buying armor, houses, and a land deed as well as perhaps "noob" knowledge from their boss.

I hope to at least reach Citizen level by the time I'm not able to pledge, but if not, this situation is something I would be interested in. Anybody else see limitations on this beside the fiduciary relationship of sorts that would cause one player to be taken advantage of?

 

That doesn't really make any sense though. So you are paying an npc to perform a task you don't want to do. Then, you are going to follow them around and watch them perform said task so they don't get killed by another player?

Maybe from a" I don't want to waste my time learning mining, I will hire and protect an npc to do it." But still, to stand there and watch an npc perform a task...I would just do it myself. Or hire another player to do it.

 

YOU would, yes, but if the ability to hire out NPC's to do your gathering for you exists, I would be of the opinion that the player should be able, should they wish to, to follow and, if necessary, guard that NPC. I was responding to the suggestion that the player NOT be allowed to guard the NPC, perhaps by making it unfollowable. I think that such a mechanic would be a pointless limiter on player free will.

 

I would agree that giving the player free will to do so is vital. But that doesn't really make sense. Surely, there is another alternative to hiring an NPC, then watching them perform a task.

I guess if that is what you want to do, then go for it, I won't say no to something like that. It just doesn't make sense.

 

Hang a sign outside your home saying "Will pay x gold for item y"

suddenly you wont need NPCs

I assume the game will have some way of communicating via signs or markings. It wouldnt be much of an MMO if it didnt

 

Even in its most MMO-like state, it's not an MMO.
But I agree that there must be some way of communicating in multiplayer mode.

 

It depends on how far they take it, the appropriateness is in how they handle it. If there's an NPC in the game who's bonded to a family because of a huge debt, I don't think that would be inappropriate or harmful to kids.. it would be a good story element. I hope people will be thinking of the game as more than recreational in the end ;>

Whether a bonded servant or a contracted one, like a vendor that you pay for by the week, a PC probably won't be able to order them to do anything they want anyway. He'd just have a job you could set.. like cook, messenger, etc.

 

There are already slaves in the game, at least based on the backstory. So from that perspective, it's not entirely lore breaking. And yeah, regarding house servants, vendors and potentially other hirelings -- they're just that: NPCs for hire. And maybe if you berate them or treat them poorly they'll quit or worse, poison your food or slit your throat while you sleep.

 

Alright, will you opt out from player trading since someone else has collected resources for you? Will you gather everything yourself?

 

You could and why not do both… If my hireling becomes very good at gathering. I will get more and cheaper resources from a dedicated collector who will only sell / give resources to me.

 

Hireling. Not Slave. The Hireling could quit if not payed or whatever.. Could be a hungry, starving NPC in town that you hire.

 

As far as players not interacting with each other if hirelings exist is silly.
Since players would be better skilled and more efficient at gathering, they would be able to sell you more resources etc etc...

a hireling would simply help bring in a few more resources for you to keep or sell.

 

I would indeed trade/pay another player for spending the time and effort on collecting raw materials.

If that player had used slaves to collect those resources and there was a way to tell, I would not trade with that player.

 

*cough* hireling.